HD 

I35C4 


'^^ 


:^:-.^' 


-'A 


"S^;"^ 


ti* 


■*-    i_.V'-..:    > 


n^^ 


:y<^ 


■^  V 


LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


Gl  FT    OF 


J-TLa^. 


r 


Class 


s# 


/                                                            PUBLICATIONS  OF 

The  American  Academy  of  PoliticaI  and  SdciAi,  ^- 

^ . .  '^.  L 

No.  486 

The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership 
in  Chicago 


BY 

Hugo  S.  Grosser 

City  Statistic! ao  of  Chicago 


Reprinted  from  THE  ANNALS  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science  for  January  1906 


PHILADELPHIA 
THE  AMERICAN  ACADEMY  OF  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  SCIENCC 

Entlaad :  P.  S.  Klnc  &  Son,  2  Great  Smith  Street.  Wesimltiister.  Loodon.  S.  V. 

Pr, I     I Rue  Soufflot,  22  Piri« 

Itilr :  Direcloti«  del  Gforn*  ::,  Rome,  Vii  Monte  Stvello,  Pttixzo  Qraini 

Spalo  :3xa  dc  Santa  Ana,  Madrid 


Prict  25  cents 


//» I 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago 


ir>(U44 


THE    MOVEMENT    FOR    MUNICIPAL    OWNERSHIP    IN 

CHICAGO 


By  Hugo  S.  Grosser, 
City  Statistician  of  Chicago. 


The  movement  for  municipal  ownership  in  Chicago,  although 
but  recently  designated  by  the  most  prominent  merchant  of  the  city 
as  "a  fad  and  a  craze  that  will  die  out  and  not  be  heard  of  again 
within  five  years,"  is  as  old,  almost,  as  the  city  itself.  According  to 
the  records,  the  question  of  municipal  ownership  was  first  voted 
upon  in  Chicago  in  185 1,  and  the  point  at  issue  at  that  time  was 
the  acquisition  and  operation  by  the  municipality  of  the  water  works. 
Of  the  four  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty-five  persons  voting 
at  that  time,  two  thousand  six  hundred  and  eighty-eight  voted  for, 
and  five  hundred  and  thirteen  against  the  measure,  while  one  thou- 
sand two  hundred  and  forty-four  were  silent  on  the  question. 
Chicago  as  a  result  of  that  election  acquired  its  water  works,  and 
has  owned  and  operated  them  ever  since.  That  the  public  mind, 
even  in  the  early  days  of  the  city's  life,  considered  the  possibility  of 
extending  municipal  ownership  to  other  public  utilities,  and  particu- 
larly to  the  street  railway  lines,  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  when 
the  city  council  of  Chicago  in  1858  granted  the  first  street  railway 
ordinance  to  a  number  of  gentlemen,  the  predecessors  of  the  Chicago 
City  Railway  Company,  it  contained  a  provision  for  the  purchase 
of  the  street  railway  property  by  the  city. 

Again  in  1887,  the  city  of  Chicago  without  much  ado,  and  with- 
out creating  a  bonded  debt,  erected  its  first  municipal  lighting  plant, 
which,  during  the  past  eighteen  years  has  been  continually  enlarged 
and  extended,  and  has  become  one  of  the  largest  electric  street  light- 
ing plants  in  the  world.  Thus  not  only  the  principle,  but  also  the 
practical  value  of  municipal  ownership  of  public  utilities  was  well 
known  to  the  citizens  of  Chicago  for  many  years. 

(72) 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago  73 

There  was  little  cause  to  discuss  the  question  of  municipal 
ownership  for  several  decades,  but  the  time  came  when  the  people 
were  aroused  as  never  before,  and  for  a  good  reason,  for  one  of  the 
boldest  attempts  ever  known  in  legislative  history  was  made  by  the 
street  railway  interests  to  obtain,  in  a  roundabout  way,  an  exten- 
sion of  their  grants  for  a  further  period  of  fifty  years.  In  1886  a  syn- 
dicate headed  by  Charles  T.  Yerkes,  organized  the  North  Chicago 
Street  Railroad  Company  and  the  West  Chicago  Street  Railroad 
Company,  which  took  over  the  leases  of  the  street  railways  and  the 
franchise  rights  of  the  North  Chicago  City  Railway  Company  and 
the  Chicago  West  Division  Railway  Company  for  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  years,  guaranteeing  to  the  retiring  companies  annual 
dividends  of  30  and  35  per  cent,  respectively.  The  new  companies, 
after  they  had  assumed  the  operation  of  the  railways,  received  in 
their  own  right,  from  time  to  time,  from  the  city  numerous  grants 
for  additional  streets  in  the  north  and  west  divisions  for  twenty 
years,  which,  in  fact,  constituted  a  very  large  part  of  the  mileage 
of  the  respective  lines  of  these  companies.  In  1897,  through  the 
efforts  of  Mr.  Yerkes,  the  senate  of  the  State  of  Illinois  passed  a 
law,  popularly  known  as  the  "Humphrey  Bill."  which  provided  that 
any  street  railway  ordinances  heretofore  granted  to  any  one  were 
extended  for  the  period  of  fifty  years  from  and  after  the  first  Tues- 
day in  September,  1897.  Although  Mr.  Yerkes  personally  appeared 
before  the  house  committee  to  whom  the  bill  was  referred  and  urged 
the  passage  of  it,  the  house  finally  rejected  it,  but  passed  a  substitute, 
afterwards  amended  and  passed  by  the  senate,  popularly  known  as 
the  "Allen  Law,"  which  conferred  upon  the  city  the  power  to  extend 
street  railway  ordinances  for  fifty  years,  instead  of  twenty  years,  as 
provided  by  the  cities  and  villages  act  of  1874.  The  people  of 
Chicago  were  up  in  arms,  and  when  in  1898  Mr.  Yerkes,  on  behalf 
of  his  two  companies,  tried  to  get  the  city  council  to  pass  an  ordi- 
nance extending  the  time  for  the  operation  of  the  lines  for  fifty 
years,  genuine  alarm  was  felt  everywhere,  as,  considering  the  com- 
position of  the  city  council  at  that  time,  well-grounded  fears  were 
entertained  that  the  people's  rights  might  be  sold  to  the  street  rail- 
way corporations  in  spite  of  the  probable  veto  of  Carter  H.  Harrison, 
the  new  mayor,  who  had  been  elected  not  quite  a  year  before.  In- 
dignation meetings  were  held  everywhere ;  frequent  threats  of  hang- 
ing the  aldermen  who  would  dare  to  vote  for  the  propositions  were 


74  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

heard,  and  so  stoutly  did  the  people  fight  in  their  own  behalf  that 
the  council  did  not  dare  to  pass  the  ordinances.  Not  satisfied  with 
that  result,  the  agitation  was  kept  up  until  in  1899  the  legislature  re- 
pealed the  so-called  "Allen  Law,"  and  in  lieu  thereof  passed  a  law 
corresponding  to  the  old  law  limiting  franchise  grants  to  twenty 
years. 

As  soon  as,  through  the  "Humphrey  Bill,"  the  people  of  Chicago 
were  challenged  to  protect  their  rights  in  the  streets  of  the  city,  the 
council  appointed  a  committee  to  make  an  exhaustive  investigation 
of  the  entire  matter.  This  committee,  known  as  the  Harlan  Com- 
mittee, reported  to  the  council  in  March,  1898.  In  this  report  were 
set  forth  all  the  facts  as  they  existed  at  that  time  in  regard  to  the 
street  railways,  and  for  the  first  time  the  public  came  into  possession 
of  reliable  and  helpful  information.  Aroused  by  the  bold  efforts 
of  Yerkes,  and  fortified  by  the  knowledge  that  most  of  the  franchises 
of  the  old  companies  were  about  to  expire,  the  public  there  and  then 
became  firmly  determined  that  no  further  franchises  should  be  given 
to  these  companies.  They  realized  how  utterly  inadequate  the  street 
car  service  had  been  for  years — how  they  had  been  subjected  to  the 
most  abominable,  yes,  indecent,  treatment — how  the  purpose  of 
accommodating  the  people  had  been  entirely  lost  sight  of  by  the 
companies,  whose  only  aim  for  years  seemed  to  have  been  to  pro- 
cure the  largest  number  of  nickels  for  the  least  amount  of  service. 
The  cause  of  municipal  ownership  received  an  impetus  which  since 
then  has  grown  stronger  and  stronger ;  which,  in  spite  of  all  the 
machinations  on  the  part  of  the  traction  interests,  could  not  be 
downed,  and  which,  to  judge  from  the  present  attitude  of  the  people, 
will  not  down  until  it  has  been  brought  to  a  successful  realization. 
It  might  be  truthfully  said  that  Mr.  Yerkes  is  the  father  of  the 
present  municipal  ownership  movement,  for,  had  he  been  wise 
enough  to  introduce  proper  transportation  service  and  be  modest 
or  at  least  moderate  in  his  demands  for  franchise  renewals,  it  may 
justly  be  assumed  that  the  companies  would  have  received  an  exten- 
sion of  their  grants,  and  that  consequently  there  would  have  been  no 
street  railway  question  in  Chicago. 

As  soon  as  the  street  railway  interests  saw  their  attempt  to 
grab  the  streets  of^  Chicago  for  another  half  century  foiled  in  so 
pronounced  a  manner,  they  at  once  began  to  raise  the  cry  of  their 
rights  under  the  so-called  "Ninety-nine  Year  Act,"  under  which  they 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  m  Chicago  75 

claimed  their  franchise  rights  extended  until  1958  and  i960  re- 
spectively. This  ninety-nine  year  act  playing  so  great  a  part  in  the 
present  controversy  is  nothing  but  a  mere  legislative  enactment, 
passed  in  1865,  amending  an  act  of  February,  1859,  which  incor- 
porated the  Chicago  City  Railway  Company  and  the  North  Chicago 
City  Railway  Company,  and  likewise  amending  an  act  of  February, 
1861,  which  incorporated  the  Chicago  West  Division  Railway  Com- 
pany. Under  this  act  the  corporate  life  of  these  three  companies  was 
extended  from  twenty-five  to  ninety-nine  years,  and  further  con- 
tained the  following  amendment : 

"And  any  and  all  acts  or  deeds  of  transfer  of  rights,  privileges  or  fran- 
chises, between  the  corporations  in  said  several  acts  named,  or  any  two  of 
them,  and  all  contracts,  stipulations,  licenses  and  undertakings,  made,  entered 
into  or  given,  and  as  made  or  amended  by  and  between  the  said  Common 
Council  and  any  one  or  more  of  the  said  corporations,  respecting  the  loca- 
tion, use  or  exclusion  of  railways  in  or  upon  the  streets,  or  any  of  them,  of 
said  city,  shall  be  deemed  and  held  and  continued  in  force  during  the  life 
hereof,  as  valid  and  effectual  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  if  made  a  part, 
and  the  same  are  hereby  made  a  part  of  said  several  acts." 

The  claim  of  the  companies  under  this  amendatory  act,  passed 
over  the  veto  of  the  then  governor,  Oglesby,  in  spite  of  great  pub- 
lic opposition,  has  never  been  adjudicated,  has  always  been  disputed 
by  the  city,  and  is  now  pending  in  the  United  States  Supreme  Court. 

In  the  light  of  the  following  events  it  seems  as  though  Mr. 
Yerkes,  no  doubt  aware  of  the  weakness  of  his  position,  must  have 
had  some  very  deep  and  mysterious  purpose  in  thus  setting  up  these 
proud  claims,  and  this  became  evident  when  in  1899  he  managed  to 
organize  the  Chicago  Union  Traction  Company,  as  the  successor 
of  his  two  former  companies.  These  leased  all  their  property  rights, 
including  their  leasehold  interests,  privileges,  franchises,  etc.,  to  the 
Chicago  Union  Traction  Company,  which  latter  undertook  and 
agreed  to  assume  and  pay  the  floating  indebtedness  of  the  former 
corporations,  interest  on  the  bonded  indebtedness,  aggregating  over 
twenty-five  million  dollars,  and  dividends  to  the  stockholders  of 
the  five  underlying  corporations  to  the  amount  of  one  million  six 
hundred  and  thirty  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty-three  dollars 
annually.  After  Mr.  Yerkes  had  succeeded  in  floating  this  new 
enterprise,  out  of  which  he  is  reputed  to  have  drawn  more  than  ten 
million  dollars,  he  disappeared  from  the  field  of  action  to  build  his 


76  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

"two-penny  tubes"  in  London,  leaving  to  the  syndicate  that  suc- 
ceeded him  the  heritage  of  the  legal  battle  that  has  already  con- 
sumed many  years. 

Chicago  was  on  the  qui  vive.  In  December,  1899,  the  city  coun- 
cil created  the  Street  Railway  Commision,  with  directions  to  prepare 
and  submit  to  the  legislature  a  comprehensive  bill  for  new  street 
railway  legislation.  In  his  annual  message  of  December,  1899, 
Mayor  Harrison,  who  in  the  spring  of  the  year  had  been  re-elected 
under  the  slogan,  "The  streets  of  Chicago  belong  to  the  people," 
called  attention  to  the  five  points  which  he  thought  must  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  any  extension  of  franchises  to  any  exist- 
ing street  railway  companies.    These  five  points  were : 

First.  Compensation  based  upon  percentage  of  gross  receipts; 

Second.  A  reduction  of  fare  during  the  crowded  hours  of  the 
day ; 

Third.  A  betterment  of  conditions  in  the  accommodation  of  the 
public ; 

Fourth.  A  proposition  for  municipal  ownership  of  the  lines  at 
the  expiration  of  the  grant ;  and 

Fifth.  The  requirement  that  before  any  ordinance  granting  an 
extension  of  franchises  shall  become  operative  it  shall  first  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  and  receive  popular  endorse- 
ment. 

The  Street  Railway  Commission  prepared  and  submitted  to  the 
legislature  a  comprehensive  plan  for  new  street  railway  legislation, 
and  in  their  report  dwelt  upon  several  points  to  be  observed  before 
any  franchises  were  to  be  extended.  It  maintained  that  the  city 
should  possess  the  power  to  own  and  operate  street  railways ;  that 
to  the  council  there  should  be  reserved  broad  powers  of  control  of 
the  street  railway  business ;  that  the  people  should  be  given  a  direct 
voice  through  the  referendum  in  the  settlement  of  the  most  import- 
ant questions  of  street  railway  policy:  that  the  law  should  forbid 
over-capitalization ;  and  that  when  any  further  grants  of  privi- 
leges from  the  city  are  accorded  to  the  companies,  they  should  be 
required,  as  a  consideration  of  such  grant,  to  renounce  any  claim  of 
rights  under  the  ninety-nine  year  act.  In  April,  1901,  Carter  Har- 
rison, under  the  old  battlecry,  was  elected  for  the  third  time. 

In  May  of  the  same  year  the  city  council  created  a  Committee 
on  Local  Transportation  to  deal  with  the  street  railway  problem. 


Tlie  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago  77 

This  committee,  in  December,  1901,  reported  to  the  council  an  outline 
ordinance  for  the  proposed  extension  of  franchises,  but  the  com- 
panies for  some  time  had  ceased  to  negotiate  with  the  city.  In  this 
report  the  committee  said  : 

"The  immediate  municipalization  of  the  street  railways  of  Chicago  as 
a  practical  proposition  most  persons  will  readily  admit  is  out  of  the  question." 

and  further: 

"But  the  public  is  greatly  interested  in  the  early  improvement  of  Chi- 
cago's belated  and  inadequate  transportation  facilities,  and  to  that  end  it 
should  be  prepared  to  consider  the  terms  of  an  early  settlement  of  the  general 
franchise  question,  in  so  far  as  a  settlement  may  be  an  important  element 
in  leading  to  improvement  of  service." 

Meanwhile  a  great  deal  of  pressure  had  been  brought  upon  the 
council  and  the  mayor  to  "settle"  the  street  car  (luestion,  and  it  was 
stated  by  representative  people  that  the  overwhelming  sentiment  of 
the  people  was  that  the  question  should  be  settled  right  and  soon. 
The  Citizens'  Association,  the  Civic  Federation,  and  the  Real  Estate 
Board,  as  well  as  the  press  in  general,  emphatically  were  opposed  to 
anything  in  the  nature  of  delay.  This  finally  caused  Mayor  Harri- 
son, on  January  6,  1902,  to  send  a  message  to  the  council  outlining 
the  provisions  of  a  street  railway  franchise  renewal  ordinance,  in 
which,  in  order  to  meet  the  claim  of  the  committee  that  a  new  fran- 
chise was  essential  to  the  obtaining  of  a  satisfactory  service,  he 
stated : 

"The  general  police  power  of  the  city  is  sufficient  to  give  to 
the  people  the  relief  demanded."  In  this  message  he  reiterated  the 
points  he  conceived  to  be  fundamental  in  any  settlement.  In  addi- 
tion to  that,  he  said  : 

"For  my  part,  I  repard  myself  as  under  a  pledge  to  the  people  to  do  all 
in  my  official  and  individual  power  to  bring  about  the  possibility  of  municipal 
ownership.  The  question  with  me,  then,  is :  Do  the  people  desire  municipal 
ownership?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  not  be  received  by  me  from 
the  owners  of  street  car  securities,  nor  from  the  all  too  interested  pre- 
cincts of  the  stock  exchange,  nor  from  that  class  of  prominent  citizens  who 
regard  a  public  franchise  as  personal  spoil  and  loot,  nor  from  that  portion 
of  the  press  which  takes  its  editorial  coloring  from  these  classes  of  citizens." 

Further  on,  he  pointed  out  that  at  the  time  there  was  no  author- 
ity for  the  city  to  own  and  operate  its  street  railways,  and  that  if 


78  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

municipal  ownership  is  to  be  obtained,  the  passage  of  enabhng  legis- 
lation must  be  a  condition  precedent  to  the  granting  of  the  desired 
extensions.  In  March,  1902,  the  city  council,  by  resolutions,  invited 
the  street  railway  companies  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  renewal 
franchises. 

The  advocates  of  municipal  ownership  had  not  remained  idle 
during  all  this  time.  New  leagues  and  associations  sprung  up  in  all 
quarters  of  the  city,  taking  up  the  fight,  and  in  the  aldermanic  elec- 
tion in  April,  1902,  under  the  Public  Policy  Act,  through  their  efforts, 
there  was  submitted  to  the  people  the  question  of  municipal  owner- 
ship of  street  railways.  At  that  election  one  hundred  and  forty-two 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-six  voted  in  favor  of  municipal 
ownership,  and  only  twenty-seven  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety 
voted  against  it. 

From  then  on,  every  effort  was  bent  to  secure  from  the  legisla- 
ture that  was  to  meet  in  January,  1903,  the  necessary  legislation 
authorizing  the  city  to  own  and  operate  street  railways.  Within 
two  weeks  after  the  election,  the  council  passed  an  order  author- 
izing and  instructing  the  mayor  to  "appoint  a  special  committee  of 
five  aldermen  and  five  citizens  to  take  steps  to  present  the  necessary 
bills  to  the  legislature  and  to  do  everything  possible  to  carry  out  the 
will  of  the  people  so  decisively  expressed  at  the  recent  election." 

A  committee  appointed  by  the  mayor  in  compliance  with  the 
order,  made  a  report  in  December,  1902,  expressing  the  desirability 
of  municipal  ownership  in  Chicago,  and  submitted  several  bills 
which  were  approved  by  the  council  and  in  turn  submitted  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  Illinois  in  February,  1903.  These  bills  were  pend- 
ing in  the  legislature  when  another  mayoralty  election  was  at  hand. 
The  mayor  being  a  candidate  for  re-election,  appointed  a  very  large 
committee,  consisting  of  prominent  citizens  of  both  parties,  includ- 
ing the  Republican  candidate  for  mayor,  the  late  Mr.  Graeme  M. 
Stewart,  to  advocate  the  enactment  of  these  laws.  The  legislature 
being  overwhelmingly  Republican,  great  pressure  was  brought  upon 
Mr.  Stewart  and  his  friends  to  induce  the  legislature  to  pass  the 
desired  laws.  Well  knowing  the  temper  of  the  people,  and  fearing 
that  a  failure  to  pass  the  bills  might  hurt  the  chances  of  the  Repub- 
lican candidate,  the  delegates  unanimously  worked  for  their  passage. 
There  was  considerable  delay,  and  when  election  day  came  the  bills 
were  still  held  in  abeyance.    Mr.  Harrison  was  elected  for  a  fourth 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago  79 

time,  but  so  strong^  became  the  general  pressure  that  in  May,  1903, 
the  legislature  of  Illinois  passed  the  "Act  to  authorize  cities  to  ac- 
quire, construct,  own,  operate  and  lease  street  railways,  anrl  to  pro- 
vide the  means  therefor,"  popularly  known  as  the  "Mueller  Law." 
It  had  been  hoped  that  the  act  would  have  been  passed  before  the 
election  so  it  could  be  submitted  to  popular  vote  for  approval  there 
and  then,  as  under  the  terms  of  tlic  law  this  was  necessary  XuU^rc  it 
would  be  in  force. 

In  October,  1903,  the  council  passed  an  ortlinancc  which  pro- 
vided for  the  submission  of  the  act  to  popular  vote  at  the  election  of 
April  5,  1904,  to  determine  whether  it  should  become  operative  in 
Chicago  under  its  terms.  At  that  election  the  act  was  ai)prove<l  by 
the  people  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  thousantl  two 
hundred  and  twenty-three  against  thirty  thousand  two  hundred  and 
seventy-nine;  and  through  the  efforts  of  the  Referendum  League, 
the  following  two  questions  were  submitted  at  the  same  election : 

First.  "Shall  the  city,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Mueller  law,  proceed  with- 
out delay  to  acquire  ownership  of  the  street  railways  under  the  powers  con- 
ferred by  the  Mueller  law?" 

The  vote  was  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  thousand  nine  hun- 
dred and  fifty-seven  for  and  fifty  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seven 
against. 

Second.  "Shall  the  city  council,  instead  of  Rranting  any  franchises,  pro- 
ceed at  once,  under  the  city's  police  powers  and  other  existing  laws,  to 
license  the  street  railway  companies  until  municipal  ownership  can  be  secured 
and  compel  them  to  pve  satisfactory  service?" 

The  vote  was  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty-three  for,  and  forty-eight  thousand  two  hundred  against. 

Such  a  decisive  vote  clearly  showed  the  will  of  the  people,  and 
the  city  having  obtained  the  authority  to  own  and  operate  its  street 
railways,  there  seemed  to  be  smooth  sailing  ahead  for  the  cause  of 
municipal  ownership ;  but  what  a  delusion  !  The  difficulties  were 
greater  than  ever,  and  the  prospect  for  the  final  settlement  of  the 
long  drawn  out  and  exceedingly  tiresome  traction  question  looked 
gloomy,  indeed.  While  in  the  spring  of  1903  the  Mueller  bill  was  on 
its  passage  the  city  experienced  a  distinct  shock  when,  without  warn- 
ing, the  Union  Traction  Company  went  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver. 
It  seemed  impossible  that  such  a  profitable  enterprise   should  be 


8o  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

forced  into  bankruptcy,  and  it  was  generally  believed  that  the  as- 
tounding move  was  merely  a  subterfuge  by  which  the  Union  Traction 
Company,  passing  under  the  control  of  the  federal  court,  could,  and 
actually  did  escape  any  and  all  interference  with  its  service  on  the 
part  of  the  city.  Through  this  move,  furthermore,  all  negotiations 
for  franchise  extensions  between  the  Union  Traction  Company  and 
the  city  were  broken  off,  and  the  city  authorities  for  some  time  dealt 
with  the  City  Railway  Company  only — the  one  covering  the  trans- 
portation service  on  the  great  South  Side  of  the  city. 

Numerous  petitions,  resolutions,  orders  and  ordinances  were 
introduced  in  the  city  council  ordering  the  Committee  on  Local 
Transportation  to  cease  negotiations  with  the  street  railway  com- 
panies,— providing  for  all  kinds  of  improvements  in  the  service — for 
licensing  street  railways,  etc.  These  were  all  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Local  Transportation,  where  they  were  most  conscien- 
tiously pigeon-holed,  and  the  committee  continued  its  negotiations 
until  in  November,  1903,  a  sub-committee  reported  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  entire  committee  a  tentative  ordinance  for  an  extension 
of  the  Chicago  City  Railway  Company's  franchise.  The  ordinance, 
according  to  the  report,  was  "complete  except  as  to  the  question  of 
compensation."  That  question  proved  to  be  the  rock  on  which  the 
extension  ship  finally  foundered,  as  the  company  refused  to  accede 
to  the  demands  of  the  council  in  this  respect,  and  when  the  ordinance 
was  at  last,  in  August,  1904,  reported  out,  it  was  amended,  referred 
back  to  the  committee,  again  amended,  re-referred,  until,  as  a  new 
tentative  ordinance  it  was  re-submitted  to  the  council  in  March,  1905. 
Its  consideration  was  postponed  until  after  the  spring  election,  and 
shortly  thereafter  it  was  placed  on  file. 

The  people  became  very  impatient  with  these  negotiations,  espe- 
cially when  it  was  discovered  that  the  committee  as  well  as  the  then 
mayor  would  favor  a  franchise  extension  under  proper  safeguards, 
and  with  a  provision  for  ultimate  municipal  ownership.  That  was 
not  what  was  wanted,  and  the  cry  for  immediate  municipal  owner- 
ship was  raised.  The  people  at  large  seemed  to  be  convinced  that 
that  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  obtain,  and  the  politicians  were 
shrewd  enough  to  see  that  they  could  not  disregard  this  immensely 
popular  movement,  and  some  of  them  were  very  loud  in  their  pro- 
fessions of  being  genuine,  dyed-in-the-wool  municipal  ownership 
men. 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago  8i 

Another  mayoralty  election  was  at  hand.  The  four-times  mayor, 
Carter  H.  Harrison,  had  absolutely  refused  to  be  a  candidate  for  the 
fifth  time,  and  both  parties  scoured  the  city  for  the  most  available  man 
that  might  be  successful.  The  Republicans  nominated  John  M.  Har- 
lan in  obedience  to  the  demands  of  certain  interests,  although  eight 
years  before  he  had  been  an  independent  candidate  for  the  mayoralty, 
and  had  thereby  helped  to  defeat  the  regular  Republican  candidate. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Mr.  Harlan  was  a  popular  candidate, 
but  the  Republican  platform  equivocated  on  the  question  of  muni- 
cipal ownership,  and  the  candidate  himself  in  the  course  of  the  cam- 
paign changed  his  own  position  in  the  matter  so  often  that  finally 
no  one  knew  where  Mr.  Harlan  really  stood.  The  Democrats,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  a  candidate  of  a  different  calibre.  His  nomina- 
tion was  the  final  result  of  an  absolute  and  firm  demand  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  For  years  he  had  been  known  as  an  absolutely  sin- 
cere and  honest  advocate  of  municipal  ownership;  as  a  judge  on  the 
bench  for  fourteen  years  he  had  frequently  shown  his  predilection 
for  the  common  people,  so  that  many  weeks  before  the  convention 
every  other  aspirant  for  the  nomination  had  disappeared,  and  Judge 
Edward  F.  Dunne  was  unanimously  declared  the  nominee.  The 
Democratic  platform,  supposedly  written  by  the  candidate,  demanded 
"that  Chicago  follow  the  example  of  the  enlightened  municipalities 
of  both  the  old  world  and  the  new  by  taking  immediate  steps  to 
establish  municipal  ownership  and  operation  of  the  traction  service 
of  the  city." 

That  was  what  was  wanted,  and  although  just  a  few  months 
before,  in  the  fall  of  1904,  President  Roosevelt  had  carried  the  city 
by  a  hundred  thousand  majority,  on  April  6,  1905,  Judge  Dunne 
was  elected  mayor  of  Chicago  by  a  majority  of  nearly  twenty-five 
thousand  votes.  At  the  same  election  the  following  three  questions 
were  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people : 

First.  "Shall  the  city  council  pass  the  ordinance  reported  by  the  Local 
Transportation  Committee  to  the  city  council  on  the  24th  day  of  August,  1904, 
granting  a  franchise  to  the  Chicago  City  Railway  Company?" 

Second.  "Shall  the  city  council  pass  any  ordinance  granting  a  franchise 
to  the  Chicago  City  Railway  Company?" 

Third.  "Shall  the  city  council  pass  any  ordinance  granting  a  franchise 
to  any  street  railroad  company?" 


82  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  referendum  votes  the  people, 
if  they  wanted  to  record  their  vote  in  favor  of  municipal  ownership, 
had  to  vote  "no,"  while  in  every  former  referendum  they  had  voted 
"yes."  It  was  feared  that  this  might  lead  to  confusion  and  fail  to 
bring  out  the  real  intention  of  the  citizens,  but  what  was  the  result? 
The  so-called  tentative  ordinance  submitted  in  the  first  question  was 
snowed  under  by  a  vote  of  sixty-four  thousand  three  hundred  and 
ninety-one  for,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  eighty-five  against  the  proposition.  On  the  second  question 
sixty  thousand  and  twenty  voted  yes,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  seventy-four  voted  no.  On  the  third 
question  fifty-nine  thousand  and  thirteen  voted  yes,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty-two  thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  voted 
no.  The  one  remarkable  fact  in  this  vote  was  that  in  every 
single  ward  of  the  city  there  was  an  overwhelming  majority 
against  these  propositions,  so  that  while  about  one  hundred  and 
fifteen  thousand  voters  did  not  vote  at  all  on  these  questions,  the 
vote  must  be  accepted  as  a  thoroughly  representative  one.  Even 
in  those  wards  of  the  city  where  the  wealthier  classes  live,  the 
ratio  was  two  to  one.  That  certainly  was  as  plain  and  emphatic  an 
answer  as  could  possibly  be  made,  and  the  answer  was  not  rashly 
given.  It  was  the  the  result  of  a  thorough  study  of  the  ordinance 
submitted,  and  of  the  subject  of  municipal  ownership  in  general. 
This  study,  encouraged  by  newspapers,  brochures  and  public  speak- 
ers not  only  throughout  the  entire  campaign,  but  for  a  long  period 
before,  brought  to  the  majority  of  Chicago's  citizens  the  firm  con- 
viction that  only  through  the  agency  of  municipal  ownership  could 
they  expect  permanent  relief  from  the  greed  and  oppression  of  the 
street  railway  corporations.  The  splendid  examples  of  the  beneficial 
results  of  municipal  ownership  in  England,  Germany  and  other 
European  countries  did  not  fail  to  leave  a  deep  impression  upon  the 
voters,  but  the  main  cause  for  their  great  strength  must  be  found 
right  at  home,  for  here  for  many  years  they  themselves  had  prac- 
ticed municipal  ownership  in  such  a  manner  that  the  opposition  had 
to  content  itself  with  pointing  out  petty  neglects,  not  being  able  to 
produce  any  well-grounded  reasons  against  it. 

In  the  two  utilities  owned  and  operated  by  the  city,  namely, 
the  water  works  and  the  electric  street  lighting  plant,  the  advocates 
of  municipal  ownership  found  the  most  potent  factors  for  their  con- 


The  Mcwemeut  for  XUinicipal  Oumershtp  in  Chicago  83 

tention  that  the  transportation  facilities  also  should  be  owned  and 
operated  bv  the  municipality.     It  was  pointed  out  that  the  Chicago 
water  works,  even  before  the  time  of  a  thoroutj:h  civil  service,  when 
they  were  to  some  extent  used  for  political  purposes,  had  been  man- 
aged throughout  without  great  scandal ;  that  particularly  during  the 
la^'st  ten  years,  under  a  strict  civil  service,  they  had  been  managed 
economically ;  the  cost  to  the  public  for  water  had  been  reduced 
time  and  again  until  at  present  the  rates  are  lower  than  in  almost  all 
other  cities ;  that  thev  were  much  lower  than  the  rates  charged  by 
private  corporations. 'and  that  notwithstanding  this  fact,  an  annual 
profit  of  about  two  million  dollars  was  derived  from  the  water  works, 
which  was  used  to  pay  for  the  extension  and  improvement  of  the 
system  and  the  purification  of  the  water  supply.    In  two  of  the  more 
recently  annexed  territories  of  the  city,  water  was  still  furnished  by 
private  companies,  whose  consumers  had  to  pay  for  their  water  more 
than  twice  as  much  as  if  they  had  bought  it  from  the  city.     It  may 
be  stated  here  that  one  of  these  private  plants  was  municipalized 
shortly  after  the  election,  the  city  paying  therefor  the  sum  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

The  fact  was  pointed  out  that  our  electric  street  lights,  owned 
and  operated  by  the  city,  were  furnished  at  a  cost  of  about  fifty-five 
dollars  per  lamp  per  year,  while  for  a  number  of  rented  lights  the 
city  had  to  pav  a  rental  of  one  hundred  and  three  dollars  per  lamp 
per  year,  and' it  was  plain  to  see  that  in  spite  of  the  great  outcry 
of  the  opponents  that  the  city  does  not  charge  oflF  anything  for  de- 
preciation, etc..  the  price  was  infinitely  lower  than  that  of  the  private 
corporation.    These  certainly  were  lessons  that  told,  and  the  memory 
of  the  indignities  the  citizens  and  their  families  had  suffered  for 
years  at  the  hands  of  the  street  railway  companies— the  sight  of  the 
illy-ventilated,  unclean  and  uncomfortable  cars  in  which  they  were 
forced  to  ride  night  and  morning,  huddled  like  cattle— the  knowl- 
edge that  aldermen  and  legislators  had  been  debauched  by  these 
same  traction  interests,  while  their  employees  had  been  prosecuted 
and  found  guiltv  of  successful  attempts  to  tamper  with  juries  and 
befoul  the  very  'fountainheads  of  justice— all  these  things  helped  to 
bring  about  the  firm  determination  of  the  people  that  no  further 
franchises  should  be  given,  and  that  the  taking  over  of  the  street 
railways  by  the  municipality  was  the  only  means  through  which  a 
decent  and  adequate  service  could  be  permanently  had. 


84  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

In  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  pubhc  press,  the  street  car 
interests,  and  a  considerable  portion  of  the  business  enterprises  of 
the  city,  the  friends  and  advocates  of  municipal  ownership  remained 
victorious.  Edward  F.  Dunne  was  elected,  and  when,  on  April  10, 
1905,  he  was  inducted  into  office,  it  seemed  that  now,  within  a 
reasonably  short  time,  the  citizens  of  Chicago  would  obtain  what 
they  had  fought  for  for  many  years — a  decent  and  efficient  street 
car  service.  But  let  no  one  believe  that  the  street  railway  interests 
and  their  adherents  were  satisfied  with  that  verdict  of  the  people. 
After  such  an  overwheming  vote  it  would  have  seemed  but  natural 
that  the  council  should  at  once  have  gone  to  work  and  tried  to  carry 
out  the  popular  will ;  but  far  from  it.  The  election  of  Mayor  Dunne 
and  the  unmistakable  expression  of  the  sentiment  of  the  people 
simply  marked  the  beginning  of  the  real  fight  for  municipal  owner- 
ship. Perhaps  there  were  some  adherents  of  the  new  mayor  who 
were  deceived  by  the  term  "immediate,"  and  probably  expected  that 
following  the  inauguration  the  city  authorities  would  seize  the  street 
railway  properties  and  operate  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  people. 
If  there  was  any  such  belief  at  the  time,  the  newspapers  certainly 
tried  to  encourage  it,  and  within  a  short  time  began  to  scofif  at  the 
mayor  and  his  advisers  because  municipal  ownership  was  not  had, 
nor  indeed  was  even  in  sight. 

According  to  the  contention  of  the  city  authorities  the  franchises 
of  the  traction  companies  had  expired  July  i,  1903,  but  they  were 
permitted  to  continue  to  run  pending  the  controversy  and  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  ninety-nine  year  question  under  a 
special  authorization  by  the  city  council.  In  the  meantime  a  decision 
had  been  rendered  by  Judge  Grosscup,  of  the  federal  court,  which, 
although  unsatisfactory  to  both  of  the  contestants,  gave  the  city 
some  advantage,  as  according  to  it  the  street  railway  companies  lost 
all  rights  to  those  lines  for  which  franchises  were  granted  later  than 
1872 ;  thus  denying  the  contention  of  the  street  railways  that  all 
franchises  granted  at  any  time  would  not  expire  until  the  original 
franchise  expired,  namely,  in  1958.  One  line  particularly,  the  Adams 
street  line,  for  which  a  franchise  had  been  granted  to  the  Chicago 
Passenger  Railway  Company  and  had  expired  on  April  26,  1904,  had 
been  selected  by  the  past  administration  for  trying  out  municipal 
ownership  and  operation  as  well  as  the  validity  of  the  certificates 
that  under  the  Mueller  law  could  be  issued  in  payment  of  the  cost, 


The  Movement  far  Municipal  Ownership  xn  Chicago  85 

and  which  hatl  not  been  tested  in  the  Supreme  Court.  The  plan 
comprised  about  fifteen  miles  of  track.  The  municipal  street  rail- 
way system  to  be  established  through  this  line  was  to  be  extended 
from  time  to  time  as  other  lines  expired.  But  this  proceeding  was 
also  interrupted  by  an  injunction  from  the  federal  court,  and  when, 
after  full  argument,  no  decision  was  rendered,  and  it  was  learned 
from  a  public  utterance  of  Judge  Grosscup  made  in  court,  that  he 
deemed  it  unnecessary  to  decide  the  case  as  long  as  negotiations  were 
pending  for  a  general  settlement  with  the  Union  Traction  Company, 
the  city  advertised  for  bids  for  the  construction  of  a  municipal  street 
railway  on  Adams  street,  the  advertisement  appearing  for  the  first 
time  on  April  3,  1905.  These  bids  were  to  be  opened  on  July  i,  1905. 
Some  weeks  prior  to  this  latter  date  a  decision  upholding  the  con- 
tention of  the  city  was  rendered  by  Judge  Grosscup,  and  shortly  there- 
after it  was  discovered  by  the  advisers  of  the  new  mayor  that  ordi- 
nances covering  at  least  thirty  miles  of  streets  on  the  west  side,  nnd 
considerable  mileage  on  the  north  and  south  sides  had  already  ex- 
pired, which  could  be  profitably  constructed  and  operated,  and  that 
the  city  in  its  first  contract  could  ofTer  at  least  one  hundred  miles 
for  construction.  In  a  message  to  the  council  the  mayor  stated  that 
it  seemed  to  be  advisable  to  defer  the  reception  of  bids  until  a  com- 
prehensive plan  for  the  greater  system  could  be  completed.  The 
advertisement  was  withdrawn,  and  on  July  5th  Mayor  Dunne  sub- 
mitted his  plans  to  the  council.    In  his  message  of  that  date  he  stated : 

"The  people  of  Chicago  having  plainly  manifested  their  desire  for 
municipal  ownership  of  street  railroads  with  the  least  possible  delay,  I  have 
diligently  sought  since  my  inauguration  as  mayor  for  the  best  information 
and  the  best  advice  regarding  the  subject,  and  have  carefully  considered 
all  suggested  plans." 

He  called  the  attention  of  the  council  to  the  fact  that  already 
one  hundred  miles  of  track  were  free  from  corporate  control,  and 
that  within  the  next  two  years  two  hundred  and  forty  miles  in  all 
would  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  city,  and  that  within  six  or  seven 
years  a  great  majority  of  all  the  seven  hundred  miles  of  trackage 
now  under  operation  will  be  incontestably  subject  to  municipal 
ownership.  He  further  pointed  out  that  in  the  ninety-nine  year 
controversy  "a  ruling  more  favorable  to  the  city  than  that  adopted 
by  the  Circuit  Court  is  expected  to  be  established  by  the  court  of 
last  resort." 


86  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

Turning  then,  to  the  demand  for  municipal  ownership,  Mayor 
Dunne  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  council  two  plans  to 
secure  this  result.  The  one  plan,  generally  called  the  "city  plan," 
contemplated  the  construction  and  operation  of  a  municipal  street 
car  system  for  the  city  of  Chicago  through  direct  financiering  by  city 
officials  under  the  legal  authority  from  the  Mueller  law.  The  second 
plan,  called  the  "contract  plan,"  contemplated  the  construction  of  a 
street  car  system  for  the  city  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  private 
corporation  acting  in  the  city's  interests.  The  mayor  preferred  the 
second  plan  for  the  reason  that  it  "avoided  every  element  of  delay 
that  in  the  city  plan  would  be  caused  through  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings, appeals  and  repeated  referendums,  and  because  it  would  be, 
financially  as  well  as  legally,  immediately  practicable,  and  enable  the 
city  to  proceed  at  once  with  the  reconstruction  under  circumstances 
assuring  as  good  service  at  as  early  a  day  as  the  best  conceivable 
system  for  private  profit  could  provide.  The  rights  of  the  city  to 
take  over  and  even  to  operate  w^ould  be  neither  impaired  nor  post- 
poned. As  soon  as  a  market  for  the  Mueller  certificates  had  been 
secured  the  city  could  acquire  the  system  in  its  own  right,  and  in 
its  own  name ;  and  as  soon  as  the  people  had  by  referendum  under 
the  Mueller  law  so  decided,  the  city  could  proceed  to  operate  by  its 
own  employees."  The  contract  plan.  Mayor  Dunne  contended,  pro- 
vided in  effect  for  what  the  Mueller  law  contemplated  and  the  people 
have  demanded — immediate  municipal  ownership  of  the  street  car 
service. 

The  entire  message,  together  with  an  ordinance  covering  the 
contract  plan,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Local  Transpor- 
tation. This  committee,  meanwhile,  had  continued  its  negotiations 
with  the  street  railway  companies,  who  had  stated  definitely  their 
demands  and  the  character  of  a  franchise  they  would  accept  in  set- 
tlement of  the  controversy.  The  contract  plan  of  the  mayor  was 
almost  contemptuously  shoved  aside  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  five,  and 
on  October  9th,  the  mayor  sent  a  message  to  the  council  calling 
attention  to  the  vote  had  in  April,  and  pointing  out  that  the  Local 
Transportation  Committee,  instead  of  considering  the  plan  submitted 
by  him  in  his  message  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  municipal 
ownership  of  street  railways,  was  then  engaged  in  considering  cer- 
tain proposed  ordinances  presented  by  the  street  railway  companies 
and  contemplating  the  granting  to  them  of  new  franchises  for  the 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  in  Chicago  87 

period  of  twenty  years.  He  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that,  "Considera- 
tion of  these  franchise  extension  ordinances  in  the  face  of  the  vote 
above  referred  to  is  in  defiance  of  the  express  will  of  the  people." 
With  the  message  he  laid  before  the  council  an  order  that  the  Local 
Transportation  Coiiiinittee  cease  the  further  consideration  of  the 
ordinances  submitted  by  the  street  railway  companies,  and  report 
to  the  council  at  its  next  meeting  the  ordinance  submitted  by  the 
mayor,  commonly  known  as  the  "contract  plan."  This  order  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-two  against  forty-one. 

Again,  on  October  i6th,  the  mayor  sent  to  the  council  a  message 
reiterating  the  vote  had  at  the  April  election,  and  pointing  out  that 
the  Local  Transportation  Committee  was  not  acting  in  accordance 
with  that  vote.  Accompanying  this  message  was  an  order  that  the 
Local  Transportation  Conuiiittee  cease  all  negotiations  contemplat- 
ing the  granting  of  a  franchise  to  any  of  the  present  existing  street 
railway  companies,  and  all  negotiations  with  said  companies  except- 
ing those  looking  toward  the  purchase  of  their  properties.  This 
order  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  to  thirty-seven. 

On  October  23d,  a  third  message  from  the  mayor  called  atten- 
tion to  the  adoption  of  the  Mueller  law  in  April,  1904,  and  the  vote 
upon  the  question,  "Shall  the  city  council  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
Mueller  law  proceed  without  delay  to  acquire  ownership  of  street 
railways  under  powers  conferred  by  the  Mueller  law."  He  pointed 
out  that  every  ward  in  Chicago  had  voted  in  favor  of  municipal 
ownership  under  the  powers  conferred  by  that  law,  and  accompanied 
his  message  by  an  order  instructing  the  Local  Transportation  Com- 
mittee, in  co-operation  with  the  legal  advisers  of  the  city,  to  pro- 
ceed without  delay  to  prepare  an  ordinance  for  the  purpose  of 
acquiring  ownership  of  the  street  railways  of  Chicago  under  the 
powers  conferred  by  the  Mueller  law.  and  that  the  matter  of  the 
preparation  of  said  ordinance  take  precedence  over  all  other  matters 
now  under  consideration  by  the  Local  Transportation  Committee. 
The  consideration  of  this  order  was  deferred  for  one  week,  and  on 
Monday,  October  30th,  the  opponents  of  the  mayor  moved  the  sub- 
stitution of  a  resolution  whereby  the  Comnu'ttee  on  Local  Transpor- 
tation was  directed  "to  consider  and  report  to  the  council  at  an  early 
date  a  method  of  making  a  legal  test  of  the  validity  of  the  street 
railway  certificates  authorized  by  the  Mueller  law."  This  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  forty-five  to  twenty-one.    An  amend- 


88  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

ment  offered,  that  the  committee  cease  all  negotiations  with  the  trac- 
tion companies  except  with  a  view  of  the  purchase  of  their  proper- 
ties, was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  forty-three  to  twenty-one. 
Thus  the  mayor  and  the  advocates  of  municipal  ownership  were 
again  defeated. 

When  asked  for  his  views  on  the  result.  Mayor  Dunne  stated: 
"One  point  is  plain ;  the  city  council  as  now  constituted  is  not 
friendly  to  municipal  ownership  ;"  and  he  further  declared :  "the  fight 
for  municipal  ownership  has  just  begun."  And  from  the  way  things 
look,  truer  words  were  never  spoken. 

The  fight  has  begun  to  take  on  a  most  disagreeable  aspect. 
The  street  car  companies  and  their  supporters  try  to  harass  the 
administration  at  every  step,  although  under  a  decision  of  Judge 
Grosscup  a  goodly  part  of  the  franchises  have  expired,  and  the  com- 
panies are  allowed  to  run  on  the  streets  by  mere  permit,  revocable 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  council.  The  City  Railway  Company  during 
1904  obtained  a  permit  to  equip  a  certain  line  with  a  trolley  system, 
which  was  technically  revoked  last  March,  although  left  practically 
undisturbed  for  the  convenience  of  the  public.  The  company,  plead- 
ing this  technical  revocation,  is  trying  to  avoid  paying  the  license 
fees  reserved  in  that  permit  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  still  more 
privileges,  though  knowing  that  the  city  could  legally  stop  the  use 
of  that  trolley  any  day.  With  an  unprecedented  boldness  they  attack 
the  administration  for  refusing  them  new  permits  which  they  claim 
are  necessary  for  the  betterment  of  the  service,  and  are  doing  their 
utmost  to  cause  as  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  people  as  possible. 

Certain  newspapers  have  acquired  a  habit  of  jeering  at  the 
mayor  and  ridiculing  his  municipal  ownership  propositions ;  some 
of  the  aldermen  are  parading  their  opposition  in  an  openly  defiant 
and  almost  indecent  manner  and  a  great  deal  of  bitterness  has  come 
to  the  surface.  But  undaunted  by  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  council, 
with  a  fidelity  to  his  duty,  as  he  sees  it,  and  with  a  devotion  to  the 
cause  he  champions  that  must  challenge  the  admiration  of  even  his 
enemies.  Mayor  Dunne,  on  November  13th,  sent  to  the  council  still 
another  message,  in  which  he  says: 

"And  inasmuch  as  further  delay  can  but  operate  favorably  to  the  interests 
of  those  companies  and  unfavorably  to  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  city, 
and  as  the  counsel  for  the  city  have  now  completed  their  proposed  ordinance 
for  proceeding  under  the   Mueller   law   for  the   establishment   of  municipal 


The  Movement  for  Municipal  Ownership  xn  Chicago  89 

ownership.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  such  proceedings  on  our  part  ought  to 
begin  at  once.  The  advisory  votes  under  the  public  policy  statute  having 
clearly  instructed  every  member  of  your  honorable  body,  regardless  of  party 
politics  and  every  other  consideration,  to  proceed  without  delay  to  acquire 
municipal  ownership  under  the  Mueller  law.  I  respectfully  submit  to  your 
good  judgment  that  it  has  now  become  the  duty  of  your  honorable  body  to 
provide  for  the  necessary  mandatory  referendum  under  the  Mueller  law. 
Similar  instruction  having  been  given  to  me  as  mayor,  both  by  advisory  refer- 
endum and  the  circumstances  of  my  election.  I  have  no  doubt  of  my  own  duty 
to  do  all  in  my  power  to  accomplish  that  result.  I.  therefore,  advise  your 
honorable  body  to  proceed  without  further  delay  to  establish  municipal  owner- 
ship of  the  traction  service  under  and  pursuant  to  the  Mueller  law." 

This  message  and  the  accompanying  ordinance  were  also  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Local  Transportation.    It  is  possible,  yes 
even  probable,  that  the  committee  will   report  out  some  kind  of 
an  ordinance  along  the  lines  of  the  Mueller  law  for  submission  to  the 
people,  but  meanwhile  they  have  almost  completed  ordinances  for 
the  extension  of  the  franchises  of  the  present  companies  for  twenty 
years  which  will  be  submitted  to  the  city  council  within  a  short 
time.    Whether  these  ordinances  will  finally  be  passed,  however,  will 
entirely  depend  upon  the  people,  as  in  a  resolution  passed  October 
16,  1905,  the  council  pledged  itself  that  any  ordinance  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Chicago  street  railway  question  before  its  final  passage 
by  the  council  shall  be  placed  upon  the  ballot  to  be  voted  upon  by  the 
people.    Thus  the  people  will  have  the  last  word.    Will  they  reverse 
their  opinion  of  six  months  ago,  or  will  they  stand  by  their  verdict 
three  times  given?    The  public  press,  with  but  one  exception,  favors 
an  extension  of  the  franchises,  and  claims  that  a  great  deal  of  dis- 
content over  the  failure  of  the  mayor  to  end  the  controversy  exists 
among  the  citizens.     But  the  advocates  of  municipal  ownership  are 
keeping  up  the  agitation,  and  do  not  believe  that  the  street  railway 
interests  will  succeed  in  wearing  out  the  people  to  such  an  extent 
that  they  will  forget  what  they  have  been  made  to  suffer  for  so  many 
years,  and  meekly  surrender  to  the  corporations. 

Aside  from  the  street  railway  situation  the  movement  of  munic- 
ipal  ownership  is  making  steady  progress  in  Chicago.  The  last  leg- 
islature passed  a  law  enabling  the  city  to  sell  its  surplus  electricity, 
and  to  regulate  and  control  the  gas  service.  This  law  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  at  the  last  November  election,  and  was  carried 
bv  a  great  majority.    The  city  is  enlarging  its  electric  lighting  plants. 


po  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 

and  claims  that  it  will  be  able  to  sell  electricity  at  one-half  the  rates 
at  present  charged  by  the  private  companies. 

Another  sign  of  the  progress  of  the  idea  of  municipal  owner- 
ship, is  the  fact  that  in  the  last  campaign  both  parties  declared 
in  favor  of  public  ownership  and  operation  of  the  water  pov/er 
now  in  course  of  development,  which  was  created  through  the 
Sanitary  Canal.  A  few  years  ago  there  had  been  much  talk  of 
turning  over  this  power  to  private  interests  to  be  developed  and 
utilized  by  them.  As  it  is,  the  trustees  of  the  sanitary  district 
elected  at  the  last  November  election  stand  absolutely  pledged  to 
the  principle  of  municipal  ownership,  and  the  municipalities  within 
the  district  will  be  enabled  at  an  early  date  to  use  this  immense 
power  for  their  own  public  purposes,  such  as  street  lighting,  oper- 
ating pumping  stations,  turning  bridges,  etc.,  and  thereby  materially 
cheapen  the  cost  of  these  services. 

Chicago,  November  25,  IP05. 


RETURN         CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 


TO^^ 

198  Main  Stacks 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewls  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

AOU  2  2  1999 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720-6000 


■  v.-  >,  ■%' 


